Page History
...
| Comment # | Working Text Reference | Working Text Page # | Comment Provided By | Comment - Working Party Members Provide Feedback Here | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 7.4.4 | 63 | Philip Sheppard | There may well be further comments on 7.4.4 where Westlake text is in preparation: 7.4.4 BGC WG Recommendations 10 and 11. (Restructure Council membership and councilor term limits). | |||||
| 2 | 60 | Stephanie Perrin | In the matter of whether the Board or the Council should veto the work of the PDPs….this needs more work. It is quite possible that the representation on a PDP might be skewed, and not represent the interests of all stakeholders, particularly end users. In this case it might be appropriate for either party to raise fresh issues. Obviously, it would be hoped that these would be raised in the comments phase but sometimes it appears this does not happen. In my view, the comments process is not working as well as it should for a quasi-regulatory process, so until it does, the possibility of sending something back for further review, further comments or study should be on the table. | ||||||
| 3 | 63 | ||||||||
| 4 | |||||||||
| Stephanie Perrin | It is a fact that there is volunteer burnout. It is a fact that the same people volunteer over and over again for the WGs/PDPs. In my opinion, one of the drivers (and I am serving on four of these at the moment, as well as working on constituency matters and the GNSO) is that it is quite hard to predict which ones will have legs, and hard to stop something once it gets up a head of steam. The workload is crushing, particularly for volunteers whose income sources have nothing whatsoever to do with ICANN or its policy and implementation agenda. This should be a major focus of this review, and I would like to see some recommendations about how this workload could be distributed differently. I have no ideas myself, it seems to me that breaking pdps into clumps usually means the same volunteers (at least in civil society) will be covering all the clumps, possibly in a thinner manner. Similarly, I don’t think issues can be parked for years. I will be interested in what you come up with. | ||||||||
| 4 | 66 | Stephanie Perrin | There are definitely gaps in the skill sets of participants at ICANN. Coming from a government/policy/regulatory background, I notice gaps in knowledge of project management, accountability and governance mechanisms, policy development and assessment processes, impact assessment, and certain critical areas of law (eg. Privacy law, human rights). I took the leadership training course, and found it useful, but it was focused on people skills, which In general I applaud, and perceive as a necessary training area for ICANN stakeholders. However, I also need help with my gaps and lack of technical background. Personally, I would like to take a deep dive course on how the DNS actually works (rather than tire out patient registrars and registry operators who explain things to me.). I took the Meissen school course at my own expense, and found it very useful….but it was a fast look at so many aspects of this complex field of endeavor that I think I would need that course to be three weeks long to answer all my questions. I should note that I have worked in information policy in the Canadian government since 1981, and I am also a doctoral candidate at the University of Toronto Faculty of Information studying ICANN (year 5) so frankly if I don’t understand many aspects of these matters, I would venture to suggest that I am not alone. The current discussions on the IANA transition are certainly confirming my belief that many folks have gaps, not just us newcomers. It is a good thing to profess ignorance, in my view, and the prevailing discourse needs to change so that newcomers will not feel irrelevant (or worse, stupid) when they admit that they do not know everything. This is a long-term project in my view, and support should be given to the ICANN academy to develop deeper courses on a variety of material. In the meantime, a gap analysis would be useful. | ||||||
| 5 | (7.3 BGC WG Recommendation 7) the role of the GNSO Council and ICANN Board in gTLD Policy Development should be clarified | 55 | Chuck Gomes | What is meant by this? Does Westlake believe that the PDP in Annex A of the Bylaws doesn’t define the roles sufficiently? If so, you need to be more specific in what you think is needed. | |||||
| 6 | (7.3 BGC WG Recommendation 10, 11, 12) there are some areas where improvements could be made | 56 | Chuck Gomes | I assume more will be said about this. | |||||
| 7 | (7.3 BGC WG Recommendation 13) the GNSO implemented | 56 | Chuck Gomes | I don’t think that it is accurate to say that the GNSO did this. My understanding is that it was cross community effort that GNSO members participated in. | |||||
| 8 | (7.3 BGC WG Recommendation 13) actions could be taken to improve its effectiveness | 57 | Chuck Gomes | I assume more will be said about this. | |||||
| 9 | (7.4.1 The GAC) we recommend further that the GAC consider appointing a liaison to every PDP Working Group | 58 | Chuck Gomes | This may be overkill. You might want to say every PDP that involves public interest concerns. | |||||
| 10 | (7.4.1 The GNSO Council) Under certain circumstances, the GNSO Council is currently able to draft an amendment to a policy recommended by a WG | 58 | Chuck Gomes | Instances where this happen should be cited. I am not sure it happened. | |||||
| 11 | (7.4.1 The GNSO Council) In our view, this practice is inappropriate, because it compromises the multi- stakeholder Working Party, consensus-driven, Policy Development Process that has been carefully developed. | 59 | Chuck Gomes | I agree but it should be validated that it actually occurred and those situations should be identified. | |||||
| 12 | (7.4.1 The GNSO Council) The Westlake Review Team considers that, if these conditions have been satisfied, the Council should forward the policy to the Board for final approval. | 59 | Chuck Gomes | There is one critical and essential condition missing: the WG must reach consensus on the policy. The way this is worded, you are saying that the Council should approve the recommendations even if consensus is not reached; that would violate the terms of registry and registrar agreements. The next paragraph recognizes this. | |||||
| 13 | (7.4.3 Analysis, Westlake Review Team Recommendations) That the GNSO Council should develop and follow simple and transparent prioritization processes for planning of policy development and that this process should begin with an annual review of ICANN’s strategic priorities. | 63 | Chuck Gomes | This is a very naïve recommendation. It assumes that it is possible to develop simple prioritization processes. The fact is that GNSO Councilors often have conflicting priorities. That is why the prioritization procedures developed in 2010 were so complex. Also, ICANN’s strategic priorities in many cases will not be very helpful in prioritizing GNSO work because they are at a high level while GNSO work is much more at a tactical level. | 5 |
